Can you add some regression tests, please?

Given the simplicity of the casts, does this really need a
require a regression test?

That request seems quite over-the-top to me too. The real problem here
is just whether we want to be accepting a feature addition, small though
it be, at this stage of the beta cycle. I've got mixed emotions about
that myself. The odds of breaking anything with this patch seem
essentially zero, and we have certainly seen this requested multiple
times before, so one part of me says "sure, push it in". But from a
project-management standpoint it's hard to justify not saying "it's got
to wait for 8.1".

*puts on patch advocate's hat*

From a feature/usability standpoint, it'd be "more convenient" to have booleans behave consistently starting with the 8.X branch as opposed to saying, "starting with 8.1, booleans can be explicitly cast to integers and visa versa." From a patch maintainer stand point, given the work of the original patch, it's hardly worth the effort to maintain and given the possibility of OIDs being used, waiting is more work than committing it now. :)

The patch changes the system catalog; it probably ought to also bump
the catalog version number.

System catalog bumps have been coming through with some degree of
regularity so I wasn't worried about providing the patch to bump the
catalog date.  -sc

I think the agreed protocol is that the descriptive text should remind the committer to bump the catversion upon application. Just to make sure he doesn't forget ;-)

Fair enough... though with this discussion it would seem like a rather unnecessary cudgel to the head. Next time I'll bump it when adding a built-in function, however. Thanks for the protocol FYI. -sc

Sean Chittenden

---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to